The popular website YouTube, which allows users to upload and publicly display material they have filmed or created themselves, is coming under increasingly intense scrutiny. A series of reports in the Irish media have highlighted a number of highly questionable postings, including footage of a vicious attack perpetrated by a 16-year-old male on Hazel O’Neill (15) from Ballymun.

That footage has since been removed, but its arrival in the wake of others of equally dubious merit, has sparked a debate about the role such sites can play in exposing victims of similar attacks to further (and more public) humiliation – and about whether the publicity generated might actively encourage acts of gross irresponsibility. For example, when a number of boy racers filmed their daredevil antics in a Tipperary car park and posted the film on YouTube recently, it was suggested that the site was encouraging dangerous driving.
In the context, it is hardly surprising that an increasing number of people are beginning to see YouTube as a mixed blessing. That there is great entertainment to be derived from the site is hardly in doubt. But some of the material posted can bring unwelcome and unfair exposure to the innocent and the vulnerable in a way that many – commentators and ordinary citizens alike – feel is exploitative. The fact that the site founders have recently profited hugely from showing this sort of imagery, selling out to Google for an astonishing $1.6 billion, only adds to the increasing feeling of disquiet.

FORM OF ABUSE
Those most negatively affected are the victims of so called “happy slapping”, a particularly unsavoury craze to which YouTube has indisputably given wider, mainstream exposure, and possibly momentum. YouTube has hosted numerous instances of unsuspecting victims being attacked, the footage being recorded by accomplices, usually on camera phones. There are those who suggest that posting material like this, and the dangerous driving antics in Tipperary, will at least have the effect of handing evidence to the authorities on a plate. Bizarrely, however, when Hazel O’Neill’s father reported the fact that there was a video of his daughter being attacked on YouTube, the Gardai at first did nothing about it, making no attempt to follow up the clearly identifiable perpetrator.
Graham Barnfield is the programme leader in Journalism at the University of East London, and has appeared regularly on national television discussing the “happy slapping” phenomenon. Currently researching a book on the subject, he is hesitant to point the finger of blame at sites such as YouTube.
“I think there may have been one or two attacks which might not otherwise have taken place, but did because people can use YouTube,” he explains. “That is not the same as saying that the technology is to blame, though. It’s not really the job of YouTube to police other people’s violent behaviour, and they have a moderation policy that generally gets rid of violent footage. I’m not sure what other demands we should make of them.”
In the Community Guidelines section on YouTube, they do indeed explicitly forbid videos containing violent, pornographic, dangerous or illegal material (among other criteria) and warn that user accounts may be permanently terminated if these rules are broken. But material of this kind is being posted nonetheless.
Vivette O’Donnell, the founder of Irish organisation Campaign Against Bullying, is critical of YouTube’s moderation policies. “Over the years, the responsibility for owners of websites and forums has become clearer with regard to content,” she says. “Obviously, we would prefer bullying to be eliminated to the extent possible and, equally obviously, YouTube could have done a lot better in this regard, and should improve a great deal.”
Michael Corry, a consultant psychiatrist (and founder of the Depression Dialogues website, www.depressiondialogues.ie) believes that, while the online accessibility of humiliating footage may cause greater distress for a victim, the manner in which it is employed is merely a symptom of contemporary society’s ‘bully culture’, and not its cause.
“Bullying is a huge phenomenon, and it works independent of technology, so I think that to blame technology would be a mistake,” he argues. “It just makes it easier, and it’s on a more public scale – but the means by which it is done is a secondary issue.”
Whatever about bullying, there are issues relating to privacy and copyright that YouTube also need to sort out with some urgency.
Footage recorded unbeknownst to those featured, or against their will, may on the one hand provide a public service – for example, if a major crime has been committed or an event of public interest or innocent fun has taken place. But in other circumstances it may be an unjustifiable intrusion and a form of abuse in itself.
On copyright issues, if YouTube broadcast the sneak filming of your Uncle Pat making a fool of himself at your sister’s wedding while singing his execrable version of Damien Rice’s ‘The Blower’s Daughter’, who will be remunerated under intellectual copyright laws? Will Mr Rice and his publishers be paid for the use of his song? Will your Uncle Pat receive payment for his performance? Or, on a slightly different note, who actually filmed Xabi Alonso scoring that amazing goal for Liverpool earlier this season – and have they been paid for the use of the footage on YouTube? These are questions that need to be answered.

CHILDISH PURSUIT
Does the presence of such a site, however innocent its creators’ intentions may be, really help to incite unpleasant, violent or criminal behaviour? If a phenomenon such as “happy slapping” already existed, has YouTube (unintentionally) provided it with an ideal breeding ground that encourages more incidents, with some perpetrators striving to outdo others? Views on this issue are mixed.
“The upside is that the offenders can be traced and caught fairly quickly,” observes Vivette O’Donnell. “The downside is that exposing bullying does not usually stop the perpetrators from continuing.”
Stephen Minton, a researcher with the Dublin-based Anti-Bullying Centre, also believes that the facility provided by YouTube can be helpful up to a point. “You are leaving a physical trace of your activities, so sometimes it can give the game away,” he explains. “However, some of these people are very smart. In some of the videos that I’ve seen, they’ve been wearing hoods or scarves around their faces, making identification very difficult.”
The view has also been expressed that sensationalist reporting and press exaggeration could encourage what may be a minor trend, which would have fizzled out without the extra media exposure.
“New forms of bullying increase awareness of the problem, as they attract a lot of media attention and coverage,” Yvette explains. “But, media coverage only helps if it goes beyond ‘this is a shocking new trend!’ and points to real solutions and remedies. Fortunately, most media coverage of cyber bullying has done this.”
The “happy slapping” phenomenon was documented extensively in the UK media before it came to prominence in Ireland, so perhaps there are important lessons to be learnt from the manner in which it was dealt with there.
Graham Barnfield elaborates: “I think the UK media started by exaggerating (happy slapping incidents), and now it has more or less encouraged them. When it was being reported 18 months ago, it tended to be a very regional affair based in South-East London and the North-East of England. After the big storm of media coverage we saw in April and May 2005, it had definitely become more of a national trend within the UK.”
Indeed, when I ask Stephen Minton about the number of “happy slapping” or video-recorded bullying incidents his organisation has come across, he replies: “We have never dealt with such a complaint ourselves, but we are aware of it through the media. We do a lot of outreach work in schools, and at parent and community group meetings. It would come up on at least every other occasion.”
However, he is keen to stress that this does not make him believe that the phenomenon is exaggerated, or that it should be lower down his organisation’s list of priorities.
“We haven’t dealt with it yet, but we feel it’s only a matter of time before we'll have to,” he explains. “Our commitment would be to research this issue properly as soon as we can.”
Graham Barnfield offers some comforting words on the “happy slapping” issue, saying that among the 15-18 year olds he has given talks to in recent times, it is now seen as an unfashionable and childish pursuit. Regardless of that welcome development, there is an increasing view that YouTube must rid their site of any violent/illegal material, as quickly and efficiently as possible.b